Definitely Reform The Succession

by Chris | 27 Sep 2008 | No Comments

st edwards crownIt was proposed and rejected by the Attorney General just back in April, but now it has come up again:

Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir. (The Guardian)

About bloody time!

I can see absolutely no reason why this shouldn’t come in to reality. It is completely out of place in the modern world that people can be excluded from being sovereign due to their gender or religion. After all, for more than fifty years we have had a Queen. Neither gender or religion affect a constitutional monarch, who has a basically ceremonial role.

However, it doesn’t appear likely that it will actually happen since

Sources said No 10 would like the legislation to be passed quickly in a fourth term

A fourth term. Ok, never mind.

But still, hopefully a Conservative government will get round to it at some point.

Categories: Discrimination, Monarchy, Royalty, The Queen

No Comment »

  • Crushed said:

    Of the top hundredin line to the throne, about ten are excluded on grounds of Catyholicism.

    A further three or so are excluded due to the fact that though they are lergal heirs in peerage terms, due to marriages validated AFTER their birth, those marriages don’t count in succession terms.

    Of course, wee’ve never had the Salc Law here, not quite.

    Though Henry VII was King in right of his wife.

    # 27 September 2008 at 5:07 pm
  • ThunderDragon said:

    Whether or not it would change anything doesn’t matter. What does is that there is no prevention on such spurious grounds.

    FYI – Henry VII was king through some convoluted genealogy, and conquest. He married his wife AFTER becoming king and primarily to end the War of the Roses. William of Orange was king through his wife, but he is the only one who has been.

    # 27 September 2008 at 5:20 pm
  • Matt said:

    >But still, hopefully a Conservative government will get round to it at some point

    They need to. If they had got round to the Lords last time, we woudn’t be saddled with the current Lords cockup. Reform is far better done by people who don’t have an obsession about the institution in question.

    # 27 September 2008 at 5:44 pm
  • Disestablishmentarianism | ThunderDragon Blog said:

    [...] As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch – essential if the rights of succession are reformed. [...]

    # 23 October 2008 at 1:12 pm
  • Disestablishmentarianism | The Wardman Wire said:

    [...] As for the “consequences for the monarchy”, they are minor. The only differences are that the titles “Defender of the Faith” and the “Supreme Governor” would become within the rights of the Church of England to offer to the monarch – essential if the rights of succession are reformed. [...]

    # 23 October 2008 at 6:40 pm

Comments

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.